21 Responses to “Kiki Dunst Must be Spinning in Her Grave”

1. December Quinn Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 8:45 am

   1 Sorry, Bam, you know I love you but I have to disagree. Mary Jane looks exactly the way Mary Jane does in the comics, especially when Adam Hughes draws her. In fact she looks pretty much like all of Adam Hughes’ women do. And she’s not doing his laundry by hand. She’s found his Spidey costume in the laundry basket. There’s an article about it here where Hughes discusses it in detail. Such is the comic world.

2. Skyla Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 8:56 am

   2 Maybe this will make you feel better…

3. December Quinn Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am

   3 BTW, I don’t mean that I approve of this being the way it is in the comic world, just that I think in the big scheme, this statue isn’t nearly as bad as some things.

4. dillene Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am

   4 I concur with December- the comic representation of Mary Jane is canon, not the movie version. If this gets your goat, then you should see the way that the heroines in Witchblade and Fathom were drawn. Not realistic.

5. Ann(ie) Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am

   5 The pink thong is impressively bad taste.

6. Karmyn Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am

   6 This has been making the rounds at various websites and it is horrid. I’m not a comic person, but this is all kinds of wrong.

7. shuzluva Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am

   7 MJ may be drawn badly (sorry, I couldn’t help myself with the Jessica Rabbit reference…I mean LOOK AT HER!) but was it necessary to turn her into a 3D object that makes Barbie look normal?

8. Kathleen Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am

   8 bad, but not as bad as his gender-bending version of the White Queen. Check it: http://www.newsarama.com/Merch....._Emma.html Is homegirl smuggling plums or is that just me?

9. SweetNSourGirl Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am

   9 11) Can’t seem to find detergent with proper spelling. “KLEEN”?

10. Ann(ie) Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    10 She totally has a tuck-back, Kathleen.

11. April Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    11 If she’s not careful, those boobs are going to fall into the laundry.

12. Darragha Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    12 Ah, another glorified personification of the average American woman!

13. Charlene Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    13 The guys who have been defending this (and most have been incredibly touchy) on various websites have been calling critics who complain about it “stupid”. The statuette costs $129.99 US. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY DOLLARS. And they call the critics stupid??

14. Shiloh Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    14 uh… this is a statue that people are actually buying???? Hmmmmm…..

15. December Quinn Posted: May 29th, 2007 at 11:40 pm

    15 It’s sold out, Shiloh. You should see some of the statues of Power Girl out there…

16. mee Posted: May 30th, 2007 at 1:59 am

    16 Comics do have a habit of flaunting corsets and skin-tights. Mary Jane is just so out of proportion it looks freaky and that pose coupled with the backward look made me wonder what was happening off screen. Is there going to be an accompanying Spiddy statue that slots in behind?

17. dl Posted: May 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am

    17 When confronted with this stuff, I assume: #1 The illustrator flunked anatomy class. #2 The illustrator has no real life experience with naked women due to his personal scent of dirt sox and BO (this phenomenon also applies to computer geeks and obsessive gamers). These pathetic souls usually lack social skills, and are actively avoided by all sane females. #3 The illustrator is a pig and a pervert. Kathleen…The White Queen is missing basic anatomy parts (see #1 above) that would be visible in a corset cut this low. She has no nipples and a definate package?! IMO if these were actual photographs instead of illustrations, alot of comics would be required to be labeled and sold as porn. (or at least erotica).

18. Emily Veinglory Posted: May 30th, 2007 at 8:05 am

    18 That change to that kind of boobs and anorexia (combined presumably by the use of a lot of silicone) is the main reason I stopped getting comics in the early 90s. When rendered in three (double) D the stupidity of the degree of anatomical distortion is all the more obvious. That and neither DC nor Marvel had a decent female lead that they could resist torturing to semi-naked-erotic death (no I *still* haven’t recovered from what they did to Batgirl).

19. BernardL Posted: May 30th, 2007 at 8:37 am

    19 I’m not calling anyone stupid, or paying a hundred thirty bucks for a comic statue; but all in all, it’s not bad. As dillene says, you should see Witchblade and Fathom. The statue illustrates the ‘Nip/Tuck’ craze sweeping away sanity in the heads of women, spending small fortunes to look exactly like that very statue. Ugh! This all reminds me of Mrs. Robinson’s husband in “The Graduate” giving Benjamin the one word to remember at his graduation party: Plastic.

20. Kathleen Posted: May 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am

    20 Okay, yes, thank you. I thought I was a perv for noticing Whitey came with a penis. Is it like a bonus attachment? Is she, like, for closet-case comic fans? MJ here is clearly for the still-virginal contingent. Listen, no real woman is going to react with coy delight when she finds out her boyfriend is keeping a major secret. Slap some rage on her face, deflate the girls and give her an outfit she can breathe in, and then you’re talking.

21. Flo Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    21 Hahahaha Whitey totally has a peener. I pointed and laughed at the monitor when I clicked on that link. And yeah, it’s hard finding a comic that isn’t specifically drawn FOR men BY men to get MEN fap fap fapping away while imagining that MJ or the White Queen would bend them over and teach them how to be a good little boy. As for people who power game and stink… I do not resemble that stinking part! *sniffs pits*